Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "Planning Council/May 20 2009"
(→Attendees) |
(→Topics) |
||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
:: See the [http://www.doodle.com/fqkqrc6nqzfby7ni doodle poll] | :: See the [http://www.doodle.com/fqkqrc6nqzfby7ni doodle poll] | ||
:: And especially last few comments in [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=271054 bug 271054] | :: And especially last few comments in [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=271054 bug 271054] | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::: Helios. The runner up was Halley. (in case EMO Legal review finds issue with Helios). | ||
* PC Decision on Categories in Discovery Site | * PC Decision on Categories in Discovery Site | ||
:: Business Intelligence: See [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=275392 bug 275392] | :: Business Intelligence: See [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=275392 bug 275392] | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::: PC decide B I R C was ok (best we could do, this year, but subject to change next year, as they all are). | ||
+ | |||
:: DSDP Category name change: [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=277006 bug 277006] | :: DSDP Category name change: [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=277006 bug 277006] | ||
− | * PC Position on off-cycle releases and use of discovery site (and EPP)? | + | ::: PC didn't like the exact proposal. Will comment in bug, and await reply. |
+ | |||
+ | ::: Good, brief discussion on this topic in general, for next year. May want to be more creative and consider multilevel categories, wizards that could help narrow interests (and "include source" checkbox choice), should also better represent _the_ packages that are available from EPP (e.g. "RCP Developer"). | ||
+ | |||
+ | * PC Position on off-cycle releases and use of discovery site (and EPP)? This came up in discussions about a Pulsar package. | ||
+ | |||
+ | :: Conclusion: we do not want to support off-cycle releases. But with following compromise: If a project still met all the normal "release criteria" set forth as must-do's by PC then they could introduce something new during SR1 or SR2 (that is SR1 and SR2 can have more than service, if important, and must-do criteria met). The reason for not supporting things off cycle was a. it is more work to support it, b. there is no opportunity for "simultaneous release" testing, c. it would dilute the meaning of "simultaneous release". | ||
* Review [http://www.eclipse.org/projects/galileo_status.php project status] and determine actions to take. | * Review [http://www.eclipse.org/projects/galileo_status.php project status] and determine actions to take. | ||
Line 97: | Line 108: | ||
:::Frequency and dates of maintenance builds | :::Frequency and dates of maintenance builds | ||
:::Dates for next year's project plans | :::Dates for next year's project plans | ||
+ | ::::Wayne volunteer to check how done in past, and if Board or EMOD had any critera (and the answer was "no", up to PC). | ||
:::Build schedule for next year (start with M1) | :::Build schedule for next year (start with M1) | ||
Revision as of 13:13, 20 May 2009
Contents
Logistics
Meeting Title: | Planning Council Conference Call |
Date & Time: | Wednesday, May 20 2009, at 1600 UTC / 0900 SFO / 1200 NYC / 1700 London / 1800 Berlin |
Dial-in: | For the call-in numbers, see the "Project Review" number on Foundation Portal page. |
Attendees
Note: feel free to correct any errors/omissions in above attendance record. Topics
Reference LinksSimultaneous_Release_Roles and Simultaneous_Release_Roles/EMO |